I am certainly not in favor of the unusual lifestyle of FLDS Church members. But--I suppose if they are prosecuted for polygamy which is illegal, the state had better begin prosecuting others for adultery which is also illegal. And heaven forbid if they should ever begin prosecuting for homosexuality, another illegal, but seeminly protected, lifestyle.

This is one reason for the reserved, calculating appearance of the FLDS moms in media interviews. They understand very well that what they say can and will, if possible, be used to inflict further damage on their group.

Both Utah and Texas (which consulted Utah while legislating the update to its marriage/consent law) have changed their state laws on personal relationships in a blatant attempt to prohibit the free exercise of religious behavior they don't like. Marriage and bigamy definitions have been fine-tuned to limit their impact to religious polygamists as much as possible. Where else can a state declare a couple still married even though they've gone through the divorce process?

They are just going to add bigamy and/or polygamy charges to the other charges, no one is going to be prosecuted to bigamy or polygamy by itself.
I think every adult at the ranch (women and men) need to be prosecuted for child abuse, child endangerment, accesory to rape, corruption of a minor and what ever other charges could possible apply.

Since Texas does not recognize common law marriages and adultery is illegal (check your local laws on this but in most states it actually is illegal), only the first wife that is legally married can be considered married to the man. Thus the rest of the women are lowered to the stance of mistress, giving them less say in anything. Often the first wife is in charge of the other wives.

Its sad that these women don't see the abuse they are undergoing. It is sad that these guys want to find such a loophole for pedophilia! These teenaged girls don't have a chance if they are born into this cult!

I lost 2 friends to a cult like this when I was in highschool in Utah (My father was a protestant minister in Utah) and they were sent off as child brides. Their father gave them to a cult when they were 13 and 14 respectively! The girls managed a call out and I never saw them again. Their father reorted them as runaways.

They will not prosecute for polygamy because they are not 'legally' married to other women. They just have 'mistresses' that have their kids.

Polygamy is also practiced by Muslims and they certainly will not go after that religious group.

Before welfare it was easier to deal with the children because, unless the father was well off, the children would be quite poor. Today, welfare supports the family as each 'wife' is an unmarried mother and qualifies for government benefits.

Ultimately, unless they can prove underage marriage and abuse this may not go anywhere and the authorities will look foolish.

check your facts ... texas does recognize common law marriages...

but underage children cannot by law enter into common law marriages

Cohabitation vs Polygamy

The issue seems greater with polygamy because those in the "work" or who live the "principle" do so believing they will be damn if they refuse it. While the is something called "Sarah's Law" which pretends to give the woman a choice of adding plural wives, its no more than a ritual. If you are in compliance out of fear, then its a form of intimidation. Where it invoves under age minors, it is a seperate issue than that of adults making the decision to sleep around, have a mistress or concubine. Children can be exploited and were! It was parents chosing for their underage daughters as they couldn't even run, with out in most cases being forced to return.

The only escape was to marry, in order to flee as an emancipated woman, but that required the abuse now, in order to run later.

Under cohabitation, as an adult over 18, you can call it whatever you want and get away with it. Girls 18 however develope minds of their own, even inside the FLDS. Taking then young and after puberty maintained an absolute control, control of the girls and of the men who got them

Excuse me, but Texas has criteria and if met, they do recognize common law marriage. It is called an "informal marriage". This is why they can pursue bigamy charges. These people really thought they could get a pass on everything...wouldn't you if you got away with stuff like this for years in other states? They picked the wrong place. Too bad for them, and I will cheer the day the women are prosecuted alongside the men for child rape. Their actions are deplorable.

I am not a Mormon but I believe that taking children away from their parents is a gross violation of human rights. It is un-American. My sympathies go to the poor FLDS women and children.

By its unwarranted over-zealousness, the state of Texas will ironically make polygamy acceptable to America the way it did sodomy (homosexual sex) in Lawrence v. Texas.

If gays have privacy rights in America�and Texas was instrumental in getting this right confirmed�then polygamists who do not abuse children have the same rights under equal protection laws!

Release the FLDS children now!

The Texas Court ruled the search of the FLDS compound was in "Good Faith" and therfore legal. The Judge then ruled any challenges to the "good faith" search is premature and will not be considered. After the "Kangaroo" proceeding the Court is gathering DNA evidence with criminal process in their crosshairs while holding the chilren as leverage. "Good Faith" requires "clean hands" both in what the police collectively knew and what they should have known. There was no "good faith" but gathering the telephone recordings of the fraudulent "Sarah" calls and trace results the state is building barriers from anyone obtaining. I have no affiliation with any church but police abuse strongly offends me.

Sidney is correct. The Fourteenth Amendment certifies to all citizens "EQUAL PROTECTION" protection under the Constitution. In Lawrence v. Texas the Court ruled that moral judgments were not the perogative of the state regarding consenting adult behavior. Also, in Romer v. Evans the Court held that a minority (homosexuals) could not be singled out and "targeted" by the Legislature.

In regard to Anonymous, "The Texas Court ruled the search of the FLDS compound was in 'Good Faith' and therefore legal." There are due process questions that must be addressed regarding the bogus phone call and what Texas authorities did to verify the veracity of the search warrant. Kidnapping 463 children based on a flimsy warrant is a kin to killing a mosquito with a shotgun.

Judge Bourke (Supreme Court Nominee) said in an interview, "Trial Court Judges are like little Ceasers and their rulings are often overturned for Constitutional reasons." It appears at first glance that "Social Imperialism" is alive and well in Texas and the Baptist majority is spreading its gospel at the expense of the Constitution.

Texas statistics (www.dshs.state.tx.us/famplan/tpp.shtm) indicate that an epidemic of teen abuse is rampant in that state--Why aren't they targeted for prosecution?

Two consenting adults can do as they choose as far as I am concerned. But it is our job to protect the children. If there is abuse going on then we cannot turn away and not address the issue. I do however have compassion for these mothers of these children. Have we educated these mothers on what constitutes abuse? Remember these women were raised within the same or simular groups. They may not realize that what was going on is inappropiate. Granted this is not an excuse to close our eyes and walk away. But we spend plenty of money on reunifing families within the foster care system all the time. The parent(s) is given a case plan and 14 mo. or longer to work on it. We give them welfare money, food stamps, free or reduces housing, etc in order to preserve the family unit. If abuse is found then we must educate and give the parent(s) a chance to prove themselves. The solution is not to rip these children from their parents forever but the children's safety must come first. And I feel that removal was necessary inorder to protect them.

I personally don't care what these adults do with themselves, if they want more than one wife it's their business. But if they are going to have all these children per household, I feel the father should support them on his own and not have the other wives (mistresses) collect welfare. I feel that it is not the country's responsibility to help support the children. These so called families should work and support themselves.